> -----Original Message----- > From: kyungmin78@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:kyungmin78@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Kyungmin Park > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:43 AM > To: Kukjin Kim > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx; Naveen Krishna Ch > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: SAMSUNG: i2c/busses: Add > HAVE_S3C2410_I2C option to include I2C for Samsung SoCs > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Naveen Krishna Ch <ch.naveen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > This patch adds HAVE_S3C2410_I2C to control inclusion of I2C bus driver > >> > on Samsung SoCs and makes I2C bus driver dependency SoC specific > instead > >> > of machine specific. This will enalbe all machines using Samsung > >> ARCH_S3C2410, > >> > _S3C64XX, _S5P6440, _S5PC100, and _S5PV210 to select the I2C driver by > >> default > >> > >> What's the different from use PLAT_SAMSUNG? > >> > > Hi, > > > > Hmm..the difference? > > > > I remember, already said to you... > > Anyway actually, there was a stuff in here about that. > > Please refer to following...it may answer on your question. > > > > --- From Ben Dooks > > > >> config RTC_DRV_S3C > >> tristate "Samsung S3C series SoC RTC" > >> - depends on ARCH_S3C2410 > >> + depends on ARCH_S3C2410 || ARCH_S3C64XX > > > > I wonder whether just making this depend on either S3C_DEV_RTC, or simply > > PLAT_SAMSUNG would just be a better choice. > > > > The S3C_DEV_RTC would mean that the drivers the core of the kernel > > would be built, but means that we can't speculatively build drivers > > if the kernel hasn't any machines using them. > > > > Making it depend on PLAT_SAMSUNG would mean it is available to all, > > but would be selectable even if there isn't a machine supporting it > > being built. > > > > The current situation would mean that we have to update driver Kconfig > > entries each time a new SoC turns up... > > In other word, It can make it workable when new SoCs arrives, even > though depends on PLAT_SAMSUNG. > > If new chip has improved i2C IP then define new I2C drivers and modify > it as 'depends on PLAT_SAMUSNG if !NEW_IP_I2C' > and use another i2c drivers. of course it's depends on PLAT_SAMSUNG or > PLAT_S5P if NEW_IP_I2C. > Hmm...if there is new IP driver for Samsung SoCs, why should I add extra option for new one like your suggestion? As I said, just 'depends on HAVE_SAMSUNGNEWIPV2_I2C' is enough for it... I'm still thinking, this way is better to me...anything else? > > > > We could also have a HAVE_RTC_DRV_S3C so that all SoCs supporting this > > coudl select it independant of whether there is machine support. > > > > --- > > > > It doesn't mean that we should use HAVE_XXX in this case... > > But this way is better _now_ and they used same method in several drivers. > > And if driver IP changes, we can use with HAVE_XXXV2... > > > >> config I2C_S3C2410 > >> tristate "S3C2410 I2C Driver" > >> depends on PLAT_SAMSUNG > >> > >> Please don't populate the Kconfigs. > >> > > > > I hope you stop talking same issue without alternative... > > > >> Thank you, > >> Kyungmin Park > >> > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Naveen Krishna Ch <ch.naveen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- (snip) Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
